Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

Sunday, November 24

Photo of President Obama Celebrating Iran Deal with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani

 News out of Switzerland today has US President Obama claiming a deal with Iran as a victory for his Administration. Below is a photo of the two leaders celebrating.

According to the Deal, Iran gives up basically nothing. The US in return unfreezes $7 Billion in Iranian funds.

Keep in mind that it is not the US that made Iran a dangerous State. A recognized and internationally sanctioned State Sponsor of Terrorism. We now have a President who not only green-lights running guns to drug gangs in Mexico, but is now the World's number one Iran Sanctions violator.

For that, President Obama is our Idiot politician of the Day. Not that he isn't every day....
 See more at my original post here (Obama - Chavez - Ahmadinejad (Photo)).
 --------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, June 3

Iran is Only One Flight Away From Getting Nuclear Weapons

In the wake of North Korea's latest nuclear blast, I pointed out that if North Korea has nuclear weapons, then so too does Iran. If not now, then soon:
Of course, if they want to strike Seoul, Korea, they could just fly it there in a plane. No missile required. The Capital is not far from the border.

Speaking of planes, all it takes is one flight to Iran, and then they too would have a nuclear bomb. - 28 May 09
The Wall Street Journal confirmed this threat today:
Now the North seems to be gearing up for yet another test of its long-range Taepodong missile, and it's a safe bet Iranians will again be on the receiving end of the flight data. Nothing prevents them from sharing nuclear-weapons material or data, either, and the thought occurs that the North's second bomb test last week might also have been Iran's first. If so, the only thing between Iran and a bomb is a long-range cargo plane. - WSJ
Our Government seems to think that there is no immediate threat in this case. Considering that most of them work in the middle of one of the terrorists biggest targets, it makes you wonder just what the hell are these people thinking.


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, January 19

President Barack Obama - America's Neville Chamberlain?

We all know at least a little bit about Nevile Chamberlain. He is the one who secured peace with Nazi Germany by coming to an agreement with Adolf Hitler and upon his return to the UK, declaring that the agreement he reached would result in 'Peace in our time'. Well we all know how wrong this guy was with his agreement helping to pave the way to WWII. Here is a little more about Mr. Chamberlain's thought process in all of this:
William Strang, who was to play an important role in Allied negotiations with Moskow in 1939 and who eventually became Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, later wrote: 'It can fairly be said of Neville Chamberlain that he was not well versed in foreign affairs, that he had no touch for a diplomatic situation, that he did not fully realise what it was he was doing, and that his naive confidence in his own judgement and power of persuasion and achievement was misplaced.' Strang summed up Chamberlain's approach to the subject coolly and without rancour, despite the frustration, and even desperation, which he must have felt at the time, but which he concealed like the dedicated civil servant he was. 'His mind was dominated,' Strang said, 'by two thoughts. The first was hatred of war so deep that he would think that heavy sacrifices would be justified in order to avoid it. The second was the belief that the German and Italian dictators were men whose word could be relied on; that it was possible to come to agreements with them which could transform the international situation for the better and give peace in Europe; and by that by his personal influence with them he could hope to bring such agreements about.' - The Deadly Embrace: Hitler, Stalin, and the Nazi-Soviet Pact 1939-1941, By Anthony Read, David Fisher, Pages 24-25
In short, this guy ended up being one of Hitler's most 'Useful Idiot's. (Although there were many more who help simply by doing nothing to prevent Hitler's march to war.)

-------------

-------------
Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich. He is showing the piece of paper to a crowd at Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938. He said:

"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...".

Later that day he stood outside Number 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded:

'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

Wikipedia


-------------
Now replace Nazi Germany with Iran and Neville Chamberlain with Barack Obama. At its most general level we have a very similar situation. Iran is acting like the party with problems that need to be addressed, and we have an incoming President who thinks that he is better able to solve the problems using his personal influence. (At least his supports believe as much!)

At least the Iranian's are not exactly paving the route with rose petals. They are already burning him in effigy. This at least confirms what I have said here before, that the people who hate the US now, did so well before Bush became President and will continue to do so no matter who is President. It is what holds their countries together and controls their populations. Just like hatred of Jews rallied Nazi Germany, hatred of Israel rallies various populations in the Middle East, and hatred of the US rallies all sorts of groups around the globe.

Lets hope that our new President is smart enough not to feed those fires. Unfortunately, his promises to negotiate unconditionally with these Governments will be just like throwing gasoline on a fire!

A hardline demonstrator leaves after pouring kerosene on posters of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, during a demonstration in support of the people of Gaza, in front of the Swiss Embassy in Tehran January 13, 2009. - REUTERS/Stringer (IRAN) - Yahoo News
Guess they didn't get the memo!

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, January 14

Embassy Security in Iran - The Lesson Not Learned

I recently finished reading 'Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in America's War with Militant Islam' about the Iran hostage crisis at the birth of the current Iranian regime. One thing that is clear by the end of the book is that the best way to deal with Iran is to keep ourselves isolated from them.

Negotiations for the release of the hostages was an ongoing joke as the Iranians constantly changed their demands, always demanding more once the US Government demonstrated that it was willing to deal in order to win the freedom of the US Embassy staff being held hostage.

This pattern of disingenuous negotiation was recently re-confirmed as still a valid tactic of the Iranian Government. This, after years of negotiations between the European Union and Iran over their nuclear program ended with Iran boasting that they had been using the negotiations as a way to delay any sort of action against them, thus giving them time to safely advance the project.

Also confirmed recently was the Iranian people's ability to still act as agents of their Government while at the same time acting in a way that the Government can deny any involvement. This happened at the end of December when protesters stormed a UK Diplomatic compound in Tehran. This is exactly how the US hostage crisis started. The only reason this did not turn into a hostage situation was because it did not appear to be their goal, but it certainly could have been.

In short, the Iranians are the same thugs and are capable of the same acts as thirty years ago. Unfortunately, the US, UK and other Western Governments still have yet to adapt to deal with them. There was even recent talk of re-establishing diplomatic relations and re-opening the US Embassy in Iran.

The question is why is the US bothering given the still valid threat?

Iranian protestors wave a Palestinian flag before breaking into the British diplomatic residence known as 'Golhak Garden' in north Tehran to protest against London's stance towards the Israeli onslaught on Gaza(AFP) - Yahoo News
Iran is not the only place where US Embassies are at risk of a similar occupation. Another question is whether or not the US is prepared to use lethal force the next time five, ten, a hundred 'protesters' come jumping over an Embassy wall.

Links:
Hundreds of Iranians storm British compound in Tehran over Gaza attacks - TimesOnline
Obama Promises Bush III on Iran - WSJ


--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, September 19

Hey Democrats, You Disinvited the wrong 'Guest'!

So, the whiny Democrats managed to get Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin dis-invited from the anti-Iran rally outside the UN next week. Too bad that none of the Democrat politicians had the balls to call for the US to refuse Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad entry into the US. Despite being the leader of Iran, he still needs to apply for a visa to attend UN meetings. While the US has agreed to grant most every visa application for UN purposes, they always reserved the right to refuse visas and do refuse visas. So far just not for this maniac.

From last year's visit:

The State Department had to seek a special waiver for Ahmadinejad from the Department of Homeland Security because of unresolved allegations that he was involved in the 1979-81 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 hostages were held for 444 days. - Washington Post


He is scheduled to speak this next Tuesday at the UN, provided he gets a visa. According to this news report (US Presidential Nominee Calls for Talks to Iran - FARS News) he is still waiting for one.

Now eleven Republican Senators have asked the State Department not to issue Ahmadinejad a visa:
Dear Secretary Rice:

The 63rd session of the United Nations General Assembly will begin on September 16, 2008 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. We are aware that President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his officials want to participate as members of the United Nations (UN).

As you know, the Reagan Administration denied Palestine Liberation Organization leader, Yasser Arafat, a visa to participate at the UN General Assembly in 1988 for his connections with terrorist acivities. We oppose President Ahmadinejad’s participation at the UN and ask for you to exercise your authority to deny his entry to the United States.

President Ahmadinejad is a clear adversary of the United States and other democratic nations that uphold liberty and freedom. Iran’s leaders continue to pursue the development and acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities. They continue to support terrorist organizations around the world, which have been linked to training insurgents in Iraq. Iran also regularly threatens our close ally, Israel. Most recently, President Ahmadinejad called Israel a “germ of corruption” and stated that they will be “removed soon”. These actions demonstrate Iran’s destructive intentions rather than a constructive dialogue.

We understand that President Ahmadinejad’s presence in the United States is permitted under umbrella of P.L. 80-357, the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. However, we must convey our belief that at this time, Iranian leaders should not be allowed to enter the United States, even under the auspices of the U.N. It is unfortunate that the United Nations allows Iran to participate in the General Assembly. When leaders are openly working against the international community‘s efforts to address problems of concern, we should not provide them a bully pulpit.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely, [Note: Republican Senators] John Barrasso Wayne Allard, Jim Bunning, Christopher Bond, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Coburn, Jim Inhofe, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, George Voinovich. Mike Enzi - (Found at Little Chicago Review)
The Democrats are very concerned about making sure that Sarah Palin does not get a free soapbox to benefit from, lest she steal away more previously-loyal Democrat supports. This is a perfect example of how screwed up Democrat priorities are in that not only do they not have a problem with Iran taking advantage of this soapbox to insult and threaten us* and others, but they also have no problem in talking with Iran as Senator Obama has pledged to do if elected President. Why wait Senator? Why not go for the photo op next week.

* Note that Senator Clinton was ready to speak out and take a stand against him.
--------------------

Thursday, July 31

Update: Whose Side is Germany On?

It seems that Germany still is playing both sides:
In the first speech by a German chancellor to the Knesset, Angela Merkel earned Israel's respect in March by insisting that Iran's nuclear program must be stopped and that, if necessary, "Germany will push for further sanctions."

Oh, really? It now turns out that only a month earlier, Germany's Export Control Office had given the green light for a €100 million ($157 million) gas deal with Iran. Business interests, it seems, trump any proclaimed concerns for Israel's security.

Berlin's refusal to use its considerable economic leverage over Tehran puts it at odds not only with Washington but increasingly with its European partners in London and Paris. Following February's export approval, SPG Steiner-Prematechnik-Gastec will build three plants that turn gas to liquid fuels in the Islamic Republic, the Siegener Zeitung reported last week. Ms. Merkel's assurance that Israel's security is "nonnegotiable" is further put in doubt by the fact that her party colleague, Hartmut Schauerte, had been pushing the Export Control Office to speed up the process. - The Wall Street Journal
This is how 'evil' regimes keep going.  Sure they have Russia and China to back them up, but they still need advance technology from the west.  And it is the ever 'useful idiots' who are ready to trade international security for a couple of dollars.  For Iraq, it was France for a large part through oil-for-food.  For Iran, they have Germany.  They probably would have France to assist as well if it were not for the change in Government there.  As for Germany, their economic interests have long corrupted their stance as negotiator for the West as I mentioned back in 2005:
The E.U.3 have another problem. They are all working to get more access to Iran for French, German, and British businesses. It must be hard to push the Iranians one minute on the nuclear issue and the next minute ask for access to more business opportunities. Could the negotiators the US is depending on compromise themselves any more than they already have? - FFI
Even worse, it almost looks like Germany is taking advantage of the push to isolate Iran to advance their own business opportunities, taking advantage of the fact that other markets are closed to the Iranian regime.  This is exactly what the Soviet Union did for Nazi Germany until the Nazis blindsided them.  Now the Germans are setting themselves up for defeat again before the first shot is even fired. Unfortunately, we are going to suffer for their stupidity if nobody steps forward to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Go read my original post (here) concerning a number of mixed signals that Germany has been sending out over the years.

Link:
Berlin ♥ Iran - the Wall Street Journal

PREVIOUS:
Whose Side is Germany On? - FFI - 11 Jan 2006


----------

Friday, July 11

Do Fake Missiles Increase the Chance for War?

You know, the Iranians must be either really smart or really stupid.  I guess that all depends on whether they expected us to find out that they faked part or all of their recent missile tests:




On the surface, these guys really tried to bluff their way into being big dogs, but it didn't take too long for Little Green Footballs (as well as other near the same time) to point out some deceptive photoshopping:








So is this a huge propaganda ploy gone bad?  If they were truly trying to show their military strength in some sort of attempt to ward off an attack, then they just showed the world that they got nothing.  I would think that this might actually increase the likelihood of an attack on Iran.  If that's what is being considered by anyone.



The unanswered question is, is that what the Iranians are trying to avoid or make certain?



IRAN MISSILE TEST BLUFF: OLD ROCKETS, BOGUS VIDEO - The Jawa Report





----------

Friday, May 16

President Bush Enters 2008 Race with Direct Hit

In case you were asleep, President Bush while speaking in the Israeli Knesset, enters fully into the 2008 election battle with a direct hit:
in a speech to Israel's Knesset, Bush said: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." - Breitbart
We here at Fred Fry International fully condemn all acts of appeasement. As you can see, the footer of this blog has long carried the statement that 'Appeasement is for suckers'. I don't care who you are. Giving tyrants what they want is the wrong policy, even if it is the option that costs the least in the short-term, as your bound to pay much more over the longer term. North Korea is a perfect example of that.

Almost immediately, the Democrats pop a blood vessel by correctly linking (my opinion) the comment as criticism against Barak Obama, who has said repeatedly in the past that he was willing to negotiate with madmen like President Ahmadinejad of Iran who threatens to wipe Israel off the map just about every other day.
“Nothing has changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama told reporters at a press conference after receiving an endorsement from the New York City Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association. - CBS News 24 Sept 07
Now maybe Senator Obama and the other Democrats have been refraining from criticizing foreign leaders who are enemies of the United States in some bizarre attempt not to damage their credibility with them if he gets to be President and decides to give them a call. If that is the case, then perhaps he should say so, because the only time he opens his mouth to complain, is against other Americans.

So anyway, maybe Senators Obama, Joe Biden (who accused the President of long-distance swiftboating), John Kerry, Clinton, Congresswoman Pelosi and the others can explain how meeting with our enemies is a good idea. They should know. For starters, perhaps they could explain how all those meetings with Syria were a good idea. Especially considering that Syria was building an illegal nuclear reactor in secret at the same time.

DAMASCUS -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the White House on Middle East policy yesterday, meeting with Syria's leader and insisting "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." - Boston.com 5 April 2007
AND:

Senator Kerry meeting with nuclear criminal and Syria'a President Bashar al-Assad.
Here is Senator Kerry said just over a year ago about appeasement meetings:

"It's important to engage in some kind of discussion," added Kerry, on a nine-day tour that also includes stops in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and the West Bank.

"It's important to ask questions, to probe, and to get a feel for what the dynamics are, and I'm confident that I can share those with the administration." - Boston.com 15 Dec 06

Related to this is North Korea being caught spreading their nuclear technology to Syria. The two countries were so intent on making this happen at high levels that one of the senior North Korea scientists participating in the Syria nuke project was also one of the senior negotiations at the six-party disarmament talks. Appeasing people on the other side of the table only gets you blindsided later.

Funny thing, is, with all these Democrats beating a trail to Iran's doorstep through Syria, it is not hard to Swiftboat a Democrat, when swiftboating is merely pointing out the obvious. That these guys are not much more than useful idiots. The problem is that they are dangerous persons to let run the country.

This incident brings another player into the 2008 campaign. Like it or not, the Democrats just realized that they have a huge campaign problem in the form of President George Bush. Clearly, the President is not going to sit this election out. Hell, he has stated before that he loves to campaign. The problem for the Dems and specifically Obama, is that Bush can give John McCain all the space he wants to run a clean and positive campaign, while all the time delivering broadsides against Obama with little options for them to fight back at him. After all, he is not running for re-election. He is not concerned about his approval rating dropping any further. And he is not worried about any direct attacks, as the Democrats have basically thrown everything they could at him already, including fake documents and fabricated stories intended to discredit him. Even better is that President Bush can and has denied that the attack was an intentional attack or an attack at all. Given that Democrats have hammered home the point that the President is an idiot, then of course anything seen as an attack must be pure coincidence. After all, he's not bright enough to do these things on purpose, right?

Previous:
Most Disturbing Part of North Korea-Syria Connection - 29 Apr 08
Traffic on the Useful Idiot Highway to Syria - 17 Dec 06
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - 23 Aug 05

----------

Thursday, February 21

US Assistance to Russia Funding Iranian Nukes

Back in August of last year I asked why are we still giving Russia about a billion dollars a year when they clearly have money to act as a rogue country. Since then their actions have continued to grow, such as bomber overflights of US Navy carriers and threats to start a new arms race, as well as once again threatening to point their missiles at Eastern Europe. (Notice how nobody bothers to ask where they have them pointed now.) All the while we continue to pay to clean up the nuclear messes of the Soviet Union.

Now there is news that our assistance money is reaching as far as Iran's nuclear program:

In the continuing US Congressional investigation of a post-Soviet programme to employ Russian nuclear weapons scientists to prevent them from selling their expertise, a congressional committee has said US Department of Energy (DOE) funding has assisted in building Iran’s Bushehr reactor. - Bellona

And, the following confirms a point I have made before, in that giving Russia money frees them up to use their own money to do things that are harmful to the US.

At the hearing last month on the anti-proliferation program, a State Department official, Richard Stratford, acknowledged that “you could argue if you give Russia a dollar for whatever purpose, it frees up a dollar that can then be spent elsewhere.” But he said the programme would reduce the risk of proliferation. - Bellona

This is what I said last year. The problem is that Russia is not going to clean up their mess with their own money. As far as I'm concerned, if they want their country littered with nuclear radiation, then so be it. Giving them a free pass may very likely result in a much larger mess later on as there is no incentive to be responsible. This is just like providing support to North Korea. Providing aid money provides a lifeline that keeps enemy regimes afloat where they might have collapsed otherwise.

We can thank President Clinton for the fact that we are dealing with North Korea problems at all. North Korea lost it's major aid provider when the Soviet Union collapsed. As a result, most of North Korea, including all of the factories spiraled into collapse. Then there was a severe drought that killed around a million North Koreans. With the country falling apart around them, North Korea managed negotiations with the US that resulted in aid in exchange for the North quitting it's nuclear program. In reality, they took the aid to keep the regime afloat, and continued on developing the weapon in secret.

South Korea also paid for the North's nukes as part of their 'Sunshine Policy.' Funny, that the 'sunshine' that the North is going to send back might be in the form of nuclear radiation. - FFI (Follow a chart summaring US Aid to North Korea which started in 1995 by President Clinton)

We all know how well paying North Korea to stop its nuke program worked out. When will we wake up and stop making the same mistakes over and over? What next, humanitarian aid to Hugo Chavez's Venezuela? You know, in order to help the 'people'.

Links:
When looking at the following two articles, one wonders if there who was plagerizing who:
US –Russian aid programme said to help finance Iran’s nuclear ambitions - Bellona
Energy Dept. Funding Institutes with Iranian Ties - NY Times

Previous:
US Assistance to Russia (2006) $949.3 Million - 15 Aug 07 - FFI
President Clinton, savior of North Korea? - 8 Oct 06 - FFI

Tuesday, October 30

Bomb Iran - Start with the Missile Factory

Once again there are news reports that missiles manufactured in Iran are being used in Iraq to target US troops and cause general havoc.

If they are made in Iran, there is a factory. Bomb the sh*t out of it. If we do not have the will to do it, then ask the Israelis to do it for us.

This has been an ongoing issue. Confederate Yankee covered this story already in July. That is long enough to address this issue diplomatically, and this was reportedly discussed when the US met with Iran, only to be met with denials.


Click the photo for the related story and photos at Confederate Yankee

And if we are going to go to the trouble of leveling the missile factory, then we might as well also destroy the factory that is manufacturing the powerful EFPs being used as IEDs coming out of Iran. (PDF Report here.)

This act will have two immediate effects. One, reduce the flow of these weapons to terrorists as well as send a message to Iran that the US is prepared to act (in addition to sanctions) and that there is still a price to pay for attacking US forces.

So while Congress fights over how to restrict the President's options when it comes to stopping Iran, (reckless behavior in my opinion) it should be taken into account that those actions have the side effect of protecting the manufacture and supply of these weapons. The problem is not that these facilities cannot be targeted; it is a lack of will to use force to do so. The Iranians know this and are taking advantage of it. Do keep in mind that this would not be an attack, but more so a response to being attacked already.

Links:
Iranian Rockets Recovered In Iraq [with Photos] - Confederate Yankee
More Iranian Rockets Used to Attack U.S. - Jawa Report


- -

Thursday, September 27

Anchor Countries

One dream, especially in Europe, is of the future society, a Modern Society. Part of getting there, for them, was the formation of the European Union. The EU would fulfill many goals for getting to this Modern Society, including fostering a healthy growing economy, standardization of all sorts of things, facilitate free trade and eliminate the threat of wars with the eventual benefit of not needing military forces.

The United Nations was also setup for many similar reasons. While maybe not including the Modern Society, surely for the advance of mankind in the lesser-developed parts of the world, which in itself helps the rest of us advance even farther.

The world can easily be on the path to a modern society with the United States around. Most likely, the US will be a major contributor of what is required to get us to the level of a modern society. For all the criticism, the US does way more good that bad. The good being the norm and the bad being the exception. Even with the bad, the US goes to great lengths to correct any wrongs its responsible for.

Then you have these countries here listed below. They are examples of what is wrong with this planet. Some of them are bad actors. Others are taking advantage of the situation by protecting them from sanctions. Nonetheless, the result is Governments that really have no place in a modern society. Good lucking reaching a Utopia with them guys around. So here is a short list on the countries I believe are preventing the World from evolving into a much better place.

The Bad States:
Zimbabwe - Total self-destruction
Venezuela - Actions that will take it down the similar path that Zimbabwe took
Cuba - Communist oppression
Sudan - Genocide
North Korea - Communist oppression, State-sponsor of terrorism
Iran - State-sponsor of terrorism
Syria - State-sponsor of terrorism
Mexico - Exporting its population

Then you have the countries that Should Know Better:
Spain - Backing Cuba's human rights abuses. Support of Venezuela, ......

China - Backing of Sudan, Burma's Myanmar Government and North Korea. Lack of human rights.

Russia - The Russian mafia is infamous for its ruthlessness. Now we have Putin's Russia acting like mafia thugs. Executing unfriendly media. Sending assassins abroad. Using energy supplies as a weapon. Ignoring their responsibilities to clean up the nuclear waste in their own backyard, instead leaving the West to pay for it. This attitude goes back to the foundation of the post-communist Russia, when they demanded that Poland pay the expense of withdrawing the Russian Army from Poland. Providing Iran with nuclear technology and weapons.

South Africa - Demands that African countries alone should deal with African problems yet does nothing to stop Zimbabwe's downward spiral other then demand that other nations not act.

Two of the countries listed above are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. When the UN fails to adopt a resolution against a 'rogue' state, it is normally one of these two that stopped the UN from acting.



Putin and Ahmadinejad - Each the other's most Useful Idiot


Speaking of the United Nations:
This is the one entity that was supposed to help lift the world towards the modern society. Instead, it is helping countries drift down to the lowest common denominator. This is the Organization that protects the 'rights' of the countries listed above to abuse their own populations (In violation of UN Conventions) as well as abandon them while the leadership sucks the country dry of assets. This is great for the UN, which can then better reinforce its own need by assuming the responsibility to provide for these people, through the World Food Program and UN Development Program. This may even give those causing the tragedy another income source if the aid agencies pay bribes or facilitation fees to get aid to those they wish to help. Worse, a good portion of the aid may never reach those they intend to help, instead being diverted, again to Government authorities.

United Nations Human Rights Council
This council knows of no human rights violation on this planet other than those claimed to be committed by Israel.

The council is so problematic that even the new UN Secretary General has criticized its work.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations on Wednesday in criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council for "picking on Israel" as part of an agreement on its working rules.

The European Union, Canada and the United States have already attacked the deal reached in Geneva on Monday under which Israel's actions would become a permanent item on the Human Rights Council's agenda.

A UN statement said: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." (June, 2007) - Haaretz
Now these anchor countries claim that positions like mine above are typical of the Western Nations meddling in their internal affairs while at the same time blaming the Western nations for any problems they might admit to having. Yet as bad and imperialistic as it sounds, the world would be a much better place, if these third-world countries would be a little bit more like the United States. (Or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, Ireland, Estonia...)

And finally, lets not forget the International Press, which in many cases completely fails to investigate the countries above, or fails to report information damaging to these rogue state. Take this one recent example during an interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

When an Israeli journalist asked him something, he just smiled and said: "Next question."

Then the wife of an Israeli soldier abducted by Hizbullah got up and asked Iran to cooperate with the Red Cross to discover his fate. But her question was ignored, and she was drowned out by more questions. - Guardian (As spotted at LGF)
There would far fewer problems in the world if the press reported the news fairly and accurately, instead of distorting stories and sitting on others. Of course, they would not get such a free pass if it were not for all the moonbats parroting their false messages. The Israeli soldiers held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah is a perfect example.

We have a far way to go before we reach that Modern society as long as these parties listed above have anything to do with it.

Thursday, September 20

Anger Over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Visit is Misplaced

Surely everyone knows by now that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wanted to go to the World Trade Center site for what had to be a media stunt. This of course generated a great amount of outrage. He request has been denied, but that was only to go into the site. There is nothing to stop him from going down there to visit like any other tourist can do now, once he gets into the country.

That is where we should really direct our anger, not for what he wants to do in the US, but that the US Government saw fit to permit him to enter the US at all. That is outrageous. Just because he is the President of Iran, does not give him a free pass to come to the US, he still has to apply for and be issued a visa. It is our right as host to the UN to deny him entry and as the leader of a country that the US State Department (the issuer of his visa) has listed as sponsor of terrorism, that alone should disqualify him.

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Country -- (Designation Date)
Cuba -- (March 1, 1982)
Iran -- (January 19, 1984)
North Korea -- (January 20, 1988)
Sudan -- (August 12, 1993)
Syria -- (December 29, 1979)

-----------------------

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.- US Dept of State

In order for the State Department to grant him a visa, they first had to get permission from Homeland Security to issue the damn thing. In yet another sign of problems with how Homeland Security works, they did grant permission:

The State Department had to seek a special waiver for Ahmadinejad from the Department of Homeland Security because of unresolved allegations that he was involved in the 1979-81 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 hostages were held for 444 days. - Washington Post

So not only did the State Department decide to grant Ahmadinejad a visa to insult us from inside the UN in NY, but someone inside Homeland Security gave them the green light to do it. What is the point of having all these checks and balances if they are never used? There is no mention if all 130+ officials Iran submitted applications for were also issued visas. Keep in mind that Iran is currently in violation of UN Security Council Sanctions.

President Bush is missing a great opportunity to score points at home by denying Ahmadinejad, and Chavez, access to the UN. They don't deserve it. One was here last year insulting our President and the other is threatening to wipe another member country off the map. A declaration that might just earn him charges of inciting genocide. Also, if the US is pursuing ‘regime change’ in Iran, than it should have refused to issue him a visa. Issuing him a visa sends mixed signals to those back home who are fighting for change.

Permitting Ahmadinejad to visit the US, for any reason, would be like the US permitting Hitler to visit the UN in 1939 - 1941 had it been around. We would not have done it then, so why now? I understand the State Department wanting to grant him the Visa as one of their responsibilities to the UN to be 'good-hosts' but in this case that action should have been checked by Homeland Security which should be operating under different priorities. (Oddly enough, if the UN was around at that time, you could bet that the Soviet Union would have vetoed any attempt to stop Hitler. If anything, having the UN around at that time might have actually permitted Hitler to consolidate his gains with calls for a 'diplomatic solution' to the crisis, with the Soviet Union pursuing 'quiet diplomacy'. Thank God the UN was not around then! We might never have recovered.)

Not for anything, but I bet that this will be one good deed that will not be unpunished. I wonder, did the State Department OK his visit because they have no problem with him attacking the President?

Update: 20 Sept 2007

Like I mentioned above, just because his request to visit the WTC site was rejected, does not prevent him from going there. According to this post by Michelle Malkin, that is just what he plans to do:

A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.

The source says regardless of the NYPD’s rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran’s president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States. - Michelle Malkin

Thank you so much for looking out for us/US, State Department!

Saturday, August 18

US: Supreme Leader of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a Terrorist

The US Government has not done it yet, but it is expected to name Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist Organization. You have probably already heard this.

This however, would also make the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a Terrorist as well, as he is the leader of the Revolutionary Guards. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is apparently not directly effected as he is not part of the chain of command of the organization. However, they will probably have to add him later for harboring the terrorist organization.
Role in the state - In contrast with most republics, the effective head of Iran's political establishment is not the president, but rather the Supreme Leader, who is a religious figure selected by an Assembly of Experts. Despite this, Iran's president fulfills many of the classical functions of a head of state, such as accepting the credentials of ambassadors. Since a change in the constitution removed the post of Prime Minister and merged most of the prime ministerial duties with the President's in 1989, the once figurehead Presidential post has become a position of significant government influence. In addition, as the highest directly elected official in Iran, the President is responsive and responsible to public opinion in a way that the Supreme Leader is not. Although he is responsible to both people and the Supreme Leader, he is independent in his decisions and developing the policies of the government.

The President nominates the members of government to the majlis (parliament). He can dismiss any of the government members. He passes bills to the parliament and if approved, the bills are not effective until signed by the president. Although according to the constitution the Supreme Leader is the commander-in-chief of armed forces, a president can serve as the commander upon approval of the Supreme Leader. For example, the first elected president of Iran was also commander of the military. The president appoints the secretary of national security council. He appoints the governors of the provinces and ambassadors of the Islamic Republic to other countries. Until recently, he had the power of appointing mayors of cities. However, the power was given to the cities local assemblies which are directly elected by the people and are directed by the parliament. - Wiki
The summary above mentions the ability for the Supreme Leader to pass on leadership to the President, but it is doubtful that he would do that. Doing that would not look good for the home crowd, would it.

So there you have it, the US is getting ready to declare the Supreme Leader of Iran a terrorist. It should have happened a long time ago.
.

Wednesday, June 6

Iran's Other Hostages II

Iran captured three more hostages over the weekend. This time they managed to capture three Finns who were out in the Gulf 'fishing'.

Iranian officials arrested three Finns working for Nokia Siemens Networks in the Persian Gulf on Saturday. Nokia Siemens confirmed the matter to Helsingin Sanomat on Wednesday morning.

"The men were fishing off Dubai when they were arrested", says the company's Head of Corporate Communications Barry French. He added that the men work in Dubai.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs is working to secure the release of the men. "We suspect that they have accidentally drifted into Iranian waters near the island of Abu Musa", reported Foreign Ministry official Pasi Tuominen late on Tuesday to Helsingin Sanomat. - Helsingin Sanomat

This story will sound familiar to regular readers as it is similar to the case profiled in the first Other Hostages post from March. (Iran's Other Hostages) Getting too close to that very same island cost German Donald Klein 15 months in an Iranian jail, most likely because the Germans refused to release an Iranian Agent they had in their custody.



I am not aware of any issue the Iranian's might have with Finland. It could have just been a capture of opportunity. I am a bit surprised that they would end up in the same area known to have been a problem in the past. While the UAE claims the island, it is also claimed, and occupied, by Iran.

I have no idea how this is going to turn out. It will be interesting to see if the Iranian's opt to piss off the Finns as well by letting this drag on for a couple of weeks or months. (The fact that they work for Nokia Seamens is probably not going to help matters. Communications engineers can more easily be accused of spying. Not that Iran needs facts to back their accusations)

Update:
Seems the Iranians see no need to hold Finns hostage:

Iran is to free three Finnish men seized in the Persian Gulf on Saturday within 48 hours, the Finnish foreign ministry said Wednesday.

Pasi Tuominen, a legation counsellor at the ministry, told the Finnish News Agency (STT) that talks with Iranian officials indicated that the Finnish citizens would be released in two days' time. - Newsroom Finland

Could be that this was just some huge misunderstanding. Lets see if they get their boat back.


Update: 7 June
It appears that they have been released and are just waiting for the right opportunity to get off the island, to Tehran and then out of the country. This would indicate that the Iranians decided to keep their boat. More info here:

Iran releases Finnish businessmen - Helsingin Sanomat

Update: 8 June
The latest is that they are free to go once the weather clears, and they will be able to keep the boat. There is also this:

The men, who were stopped by the Iranians near the island of Abu Musa, had not informed Dubai officials about their planned fishing trip, although Salah says that it would have been advisable to do so.

In Dubai, all vessels carrying taking people on sight-seeing or fishing trips need to apply for permission from the Coast Guard before going out to sea. For private boaters it is enough for them to have a local driving licence or passport with them. - Helsingin Sanomat


----------------------

A summary on the strategic value of the Strait can be found here:
Flashpoint: Strait of Hormuz - WILLisms

Saturday, April 21

John McCain 2008: Joke Conveys Seriousness of Iran Problem

Presidential hopeful John McCain has caught some flack for his 'bomb Iran' comment while addressing veterans.

First, I do not think he said this by mistake. He probably even expected that the press was going to take off on this, knowing the snakes that they are. Now this was not a planned reply as it was a response to a question from the audience. But surely he thought over the implications of his response prior to opening his mouth. After all, he is no rookie politician.

I have not taken too much time following the McCain campaign, or any of them for that matter. After all, it is still pretty far before any of the primaries. (I have commented on some Democrats aspiring to get into the White House, but it is easier to dismiss a candidate than to find a suitable one.) I have not really cared for a McCain Presidency, partly because of his age and because he is not as conservative as I would want him to be. However, all of a sudden he seems much more agreeable a candidate. No, not because of the statement. That just caught my attention.

He has also gotten flack for some statements made about Iraq. What was missing from the coverage was that he was making them from Iraq. Now take Iran for a second. the press is crawling all over McCain's statement. There has been no comment from Iran yet, but you can bet that within a week they will condemn his as well and the press will use that in an attempt to bury his Presidential bid. But what about Iran? Where is the press in condemning Iran's statements about wiping Israel and the US off the map? Sure, the press is located here and not in Iran. But that is no excuse. How about chasing Iran's ambassador to the UN and confronting him with some questions about his President's statements? I guess not.

In terms of 2008 Republican hopefuls, Fred Thompson has also caught my attention. Sure he is an actor, but he, unlike most other actors, is not only conservative, but also able to speak without having a script to read from. (More on Thompson when he declares his intentions.)

Hmmm. What about a Thompson-McCain ticket?

****************

Anyway, I have had this damn Bomb Iran jingle stuck in my head.
Bomb Iran - 2007
Sung by Senator John McCain and the United States Military
(to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys)

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Netanz.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB Netanz!

Went to Netanz, checking compliance.
Found them building Nukes... So we flattened their plant.

---------

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Tehran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, BOMB Tehran!

Went to Tehran, looking for the man.
Found him making threats... So we dropped a JDam.
One thing everyone seems to forget is that strength is the only thing that Iran seems to react to. Carter's Presidency was basically held hostage by the taking of the US Embassy hostages in Tehran. (As it so happens, that even gave birth to the first version of 'Bomb Iran') Iran commonly acts with the understanding that those they act against will not hold them to account. This is why they managed to get away with taking 15 UK Sailors and Marines Hostage. This is why they managed to make a mockery of over three years of nuclear negotiations with the EU3. And this is why they are currently ignoring UN Sanctions imposed against them. This is nothing new. they have been doing this since the Iranian Revolution.

Remember, that the people of Iran are not our enemy. However, it is the people who empower their crazy leaders. At some point, we have have to target the people to get at the leaders. Hopefully, the Iranians will not force us to go that far. to prevent that, our 'friends' in Europe will need to back us up in solving the Iran problem.

HLet me leave you with a President Bush version of Bomb Iran:



.

Thursday, March 29

Iran's Other Hostages

Hostage-taking is part of the Iranian Government's culture. The current Government, born out of the Iranian Revolution, started with the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran, taking 66 Americans hostage. The most recent incident is the capture of 15 Royal Navy Sailors and Marines while they were operating under a UN Mandate in Iraqi Waters. They pulled a similar stunt in 2004.

There is another mostly unknown case from 2005, that was only just recently resolved. German Donald Klein chartered a fishing boat captained by Frenchman Stephane Lherbier out of Dubai in the United Arab Emerates. They were captured by an island, Abu Musa, that is claimed by both Iran and the UAE, although Iran currently occupies the island.

The two on the boat were accused of fishing in Iranian waters. The French skipper Stephane Lherbier was released earlier this year. Mr. Klein was just released this month after serving 15 months in an Iranian prison of an 18 month sentence. Not to give the impression that the Iranians were totally heartless in this matter, they did offer the German Government a way to end the issue:

"Germany has on repeated occasions tried to free Klein, with German President Horst Koehler intervening unsuccessfully. Iranian diplomats have recently hinted that a release of an Iranian agent in German custody would help Klein's case. However, it is unclear whether Berlin has accepted that deal; observers say such a move is highly unlikely." - UPI

Nice guys right? I can understand detaining people illegally in your country, but then releasing them, especially when the act is clearly unintentional. (Imagine the international outcry if the US put everyone who illegally crossed into the US in jail!) After all, it is not like they were caught along the coast with spy gear or anything. Then again, according to Willisms, Iran has placed silkworm missiles on the island, which is something that a person fishing off the coast might spot. And why would Iran not place weapons on the island, since it is in a perfect position in the middle of the Gulf.


As you can see, the international Shipping Lanes go right through Iranian Waters. All vessels have the right to transit through the shipping lanes under the right of innocent passage.

Innocent passage is a concept in Admiralty law which allows for a vessel to pass through the territorial waters of another state subject to certain restrictions. The United States Department of Defense defines innocent passage as:

"The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary by force majeure or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress." - Wikipedia

This works fine, provided that the 'Coastal State' acts in good faith. This is surely not the case with Iran. Also, the shipping lanes provide Iran with no shortage of targets that they can pick and choose from and when they strike, they can claim that the vessel was actually spying and in violation of the right to innocent passage. It does not matter that it is a lie, as in the current UK hostage situation, since they would be holding the vessel and crew, and have assumed that the UK will not resort to force.

Not happy to have control of the Northern and mid Gulf, Iran has taken the southern half of the Strait of Hormuz, which belongs to Oman:

One of the key developments that has absorbed Washington’s attention deeply, and resulted in the very significant personal involvement of Vice President Dick Cheney, was the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards have invaded and seized almost all meaningful control of the strategic Masandam Peninsula in Oman - a peninsula that covers the Southern mouth of the Straight of Hormuz. (Note: See map above) Occupying this peninsula solidifies Iran’s complete control of the straight. The Northern chokepoint has long been Iran’s; the Southern chokepoint has long been Oman’s. They are now both Iran’s. - Pat Dollard (As found from this Eagle Speak Post)

Kidnapping crews of vessels (and pleasure craft) is a huge threat, and Iran has a history of kidnapping people. This post provides one more example. I wonder how many more hostages Iran is holding that we are not aware of.

And now that they have increased their 'footprint' to cover both halves of the entrance to the Persian Gulf by taking Omanian territory hostage, giving them a free operating area to catch anyone of interest entering and leaving the Gulf, making sure that they will not target anyone who might actually retaliate. (For now.)

When will the Global community stop giving Iran a free pass for their belligerent behavior? The fact that Germany was part of the EU3 negotiating with Iran over Iran's nuclear program and they were not able to free this poor German through the normal course of negotiations does not bode well for any peaceful conclusion to whatever Iran has planned, nuclear or otherwise.

Tuesday, February 20

Austrian Embassy Replies Concerning sale of Weapons to Iran

On February 14 I sent the following email request to the Embassy of Austria in Washington, DC:
Attention: Mr. Wolfgang Renezeder
Dear Sir,

I am writing concerning Austria's approval to sell 800 rifles to Iran as part of their anti-drug program.

I was wondering what is Austria's position on fighting illegal drug trafficking by killing suspected drug traffickers? This seems to go against EU human rights as well as denies suspected drug traffickers of due process of a court trial.

The EU and Austria are against the death penalty so the approval to sell high-powered weapons for this purpose appears to go against Austrian values. So any clarification would be appreciated.
Also, previous Government statments claim that the intended use of the rifles had been thoughly checked. How was this accomplished.

Also, has the Government of Austria requested any explanation from the Government of Iran about this discovery?

Thank you in advance for your reply.
Best regards,

Fred Fry
Editor,
Fred Fry International
--------------------------------------------
Tel.: 202-895-6746
E-mail: austroinfo@austria.org
Today I received a reply:

Dear Mr. Fry,


The Austrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. acknowledges receipt of your e-mail.


The Embassy shares your concern regarding newspaper reports on the alleged discovery of Austrian rifles in the hands of terrorists in Iraq. Since any arms in the hands of terrorists pose a threat to international security, these concerns are taken very seriously by Austria.


However, at this point, no information has been provided verifying that the alleged rifles recovered in Iraq are part of the 2005 shipment to the government in Iran.


The Embassy would like to inform you that the 2005 sale of 800 HS50 Steyr-Mannlicher rifles to the Iranian government was subject to stringent investigation by the Austrian authorities; we would like to point out that the decisive reason for agreeing to the export was made by the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior based on exclusive use for border control and the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism purposes.


Combating the trafficking of drugs from Afghanistan through Iran is a major priority for the international community. Therefore, also UNODC-law enforcement projects have focused on assisting the counter Narcotic Law Enforcement Capacities equipping border control posts along the international border between Afghanistan and Iran.

In view of other highly sensitive foreign- and security-policy matters related to Iran, the Austrian MFA insisted on a detailed end-user certificate, certified by the Iranian MFA, clearly defining both end-use and end-user (National Police Organization and Anti-Drug Traffic Organization). These detailed certificates were provided by the Iranian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.


As a matter of principle, the Austrian MFA examines every single license application for the export of war material on the basis of the current state of affairs at the time of application, and in compliance with the Austrian War Material Act, as well as the politically-binding EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. The Embassy would finally like to emphasize that Austria is aware that foreign policy parameters regarding Iran have changed over the last two years; since then no licenses on further export applications have been granted - neither in 2005 nor in 2006.


Sincerely yours,

Wolfgang Renezeder

Director of the Press & Information Service

Embassy of Austria

I am sure that Austria is now wishing that this sale never took place. As you can see from the email, I was sent a standard reply to this issue, as it completely ignores the death penalty/human rights question of how the Austrian Government found it acceptable to arm a Government that planned on executing suspected drug traffickers. Technically, Austria could have ignored that question/problem since this was an arms purchase with the UN's 'stamp of approval'.

It is yet to be seen if Austria will confront the Iranian Authorities concerning what they did with the rifles they sold them. It could be that they know the answer already and there is no point bothering to confirm what they suspect is true. After all, if the US had bothered to fabricate fake evidence in this case, why not just fabricate a warehouse full of WMDs in Iraq to shut international critics up.

This too brings out another point, it matters not that Austria secured end user certificates from the Iranians concerning these rifles. It only matters what the Iranians actually did with them. After all, the US went to war against Iraq for failing to prove to the UN that they no longer had WMDs. So it does not matter that little was found, as the war was not about the WMDs, but for failing to comply with UN Resolutions. But try telling that to the International community, many of whom have bank accounts full of oil-for-food money.

Also notice that this weapons sale was in compliance with "the politically-binding EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports." That code includes taking into account:
- the importing state's record on terrorism, implementation of humanitarian law (non-use of force against civilians), and arms control agreements
I would love to see the paper explaining how they took Iran's record on the above into account.

Original story here:
Austrian Firm OK with Collecting Blood Money from Iran as Long as It's 'Legal'

UNODC - Homepage
EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

Tuesday, February 13

Austrian Firm OK with Collecting Blood Money from Iran as Long as It's 'Legal'

Surprise, surprise. Iran buys sniper rifles from Austria. The US and UK warn that Iran will use the rifles against US and UK troops. The manufacturer decides to sell them anyway. The sniper rifles then end up in Iraq in the hands of terrorists almost immediately after delivery in Iran. Terrorists then use the very same Austrian sniper rifles to kill US and UK troops. Austrian firm collects $15 million.

Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned. More than 100 of the.50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.

The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.

The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.

Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported. - Telegraph, UK

Selling Iran these rifles was clearly a bad idea from the start and both the US and UK protested to Austria concerning the sale for the stupidity that it was. Selling Iran any weapons is a bad idea, and has been since the Iranian revolution.

But the Austrians decided to approve the sale anyway. After all, they hardly have a military to risk being shot at by their own weapons and the Iranians were putting a huge sum of money on the table as these rifles sell for close to $20,000 each. That's over $15 million for the order. That was just the right price to make the company feel good about this sale. After all, just because your Government says it's OK to make this sale, does not mean that you have to sell the weapons to anybody, especially Iran.

The Austrian government approved the sale of the rifles, made by precision weapons maker Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, after it concluded in 2004 that they would be used to fight narcotics smugglers. [Just how did they conclude that?]

In comments to the AP that year, Steyr head Wolfgang Fuehrlinger said U.S. Embassy officials had expressed concerns that the rifles could be used against American troops in Iraq, adding that he had rebuffed a request to stop such sales.

Fuehrlinger described the 12.7 x 99 mm "Steyr .50 HS" as a high-power weapon able to penetrate metal as thick as a man's thumb. The gun is about 4 feet long, weighs more than 20 pounds and counts as an anti-armor weapon among experts because of the high punch of its projectile, Fuehrlinger said. [Just the type of weapon Iranians need to fight drugs in their own country. Maybe the US should start shooting drug smugglers at it's boarder too. How well would that go over with the International Community?]

The U.S. imposed sanctions on Steyr in December 2005, forbidding it from obtaining U.S. export licenses to do business in America. The Austrian government condemned the decision at the time, saying it made no sense to punish the company after the fact. Britain's Ministry of Defense said it had also raised the issue with the Austrian government shortly after the sale.

"We discussed it privately with the Austrian government shortly after the sale," a Ministry of Defense spokesman said, on condition of anonymity in line with government policy. "Now the potential that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands appears to have happened." - Fox News

So US Embassy Staff come and visit you and ask you not to sell your rifles to Iran, and probably at the same time explain the possible repercussions for doing so. Then the Austrian Government has the nerve to complain about US sanctions against the company for selling high powered rifles to a country the US has sanctions against. A country that is a known terror supporter.

It is not surprising that weapons sold to Iran are being found in Iraq. Iran is a country that is willing to back up it's agenda with supplies and personnel as well as lying no matter how obvious the lie is.

This is not the first time equipment sold to Iran to fight the drug trade as ended up in the hands of terrorists. The very same thing happened with night vision equipment that was sold by the UK to Iran. Only in that case, the night vision equipment was found in the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israeli intelligence officials have complained to Britain and the United States that sensitive night-vision equipment recovered from Hezbollah fighters during the war in Lebanon had been exported by Britain to Iran. British officials said the equipment had been intended for use in a U.N. anti-narcotics campaign.

Israeli officials say they believe the state-of-the-art equipment, found in Hezbollah command-and-control headquarters in southern Lebanon during the just-concluded war, was part of a British government-approved shipment of 250 pieces of night-vision equipment sent to Iran in 2003.

Israeli military intelligence confirmed that one of the pieces of equipment is a Thermo-vision 1000 LR tactical night-vision system, serial No. 155010, part No. 193960, manufactured by Agema, a high-tech equipment company with branches in Bedfordshire, England, and San Diego. A spokesman for Agema in San Diego denied all knowledge of the system.

The equipment, which needed special export-license approval from the British government, was passed to the Iranians through a program run and administered by the U.N. Drug Control Program. The equipment uses infrared imaging to provide nighttime surveillance that allows the user to detect people and vehicles moving in the dark at a range of several miles. - SFGate.com

Of course the UN had to be involved in arming Iran in some way. Yet another worthless UN program that in this case is helping to equip our enemies.

I do not see any comments from the Austrian Government demanding an explanation from the Iranians. Don't hold your breath for one either.

As for the weapon's manufacturer, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before it faces lawsuits in the US by families of soldiers who have been killed by their weapons. I would think that despite their own Government's green-light they failed to conduct proper due diligence prior to approving the sale and for that they will be held liable.

Of course Iran, which is denying that they are supplying terrorists, could simply line up the 800 sniper rifles they purchased to show that American claims are nothing but lies, but that will never happen. The International community does not have the guts to demand Iran to be accountable for its actions.

Update:
What might be the most unsettling aspect of all of this is that Austria, and by default, the EU, somehow approved of Iran's plan to fight illegal drug trafficking by killing the drug traffickers with sniper rifles.

This is the same ideological group that abhors the death penalty, and certainly would protest any death penalty sentence against any drug traffickers caught. Their justice is given through a rifle scope without as much due process as it takes to sight them in and pull the trigger. Luckily for the EU, Iran really did not intend to shoot drug traffickers.

Since we now know where one of Iran's weapons suppliers are, perhaps it should be flattened to send a message. Maybe not. You bomb Austria with lawyers instead.

Update: 14 February 2007

Surprise. Austria refuses to take responsibility for where these rifles ended up and even questions whether the US can tell an authentic rifle from a copy:

Austria yesterday washed its hands of any responsibility after it was revealed that powerful sniper rifles it sold to Iran had been acquired by insurgents in Iraq.

The Daily Telegraph revealed yesterday that American troops had recovered more than 100 Steyr HS50 Mannlicher rifles, part of a consignment of 800 sold to Iran by Austria last year, during a series of raids in Iraq.

Astrid Harz, a spokesman for the Austrian foreign ministry, said yesterday that the sale had been "checked very thoroughly" and what happened to the rifles after they were delivered to Teheran ostensibly for use by border police was not the responsibility of her government. It was the responsibility of the Iranians, she said.

Franz Holzschuh, Steyr's chief executive, said the company had not been contacted by anyone officially to verify the serial numbers on the rifles. He said it was possibile that the weapons were copies.

The Austrian government concluded in 2004 that the.50 rifles, capable of piercing all types of body armour, would be used to fight drug smugglers. But American and British officials had warned that the weapons could fall into the hands of insurgents. - Telegraph, UK

Personally, I am surprised that they bothered to comment at all. Of course they did not bother to explain how they determined that Iran was going to use these rifles to fight drug traffickers, nor did they explain how they thought it appropriate to shoot suspected drug traffickers with .50 caliber shells. I wonder how they figured out that the Iranians would be responsible at all in the matter.

This sale took place while the EU was negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. I have said it before, that the EU was in no position to negotiate with Iran due to the extensive financial dealing Member States have with Iran. This is a perfect example of that.